Widget Social Posts

Hey, Trend Watchers!
Click to Dig Deeper



Consult coming up in a week, I’ve determined what is important for my dream goals but what surgeries would that even be? What surgery do you think I’d want to ask about based on what’s important for my top surgery?

1. I already know that I kinda prioritize nipple sensation. As an ace guy with very low libido, the nips do definitely help. Any new nipple stalk will guaranteed f with my barely any sensation right? And the people who gain sensation after di are possible but rare, most lose sensation? 2. My nips and areoles, I’m generally fine with. I’ve seen cis guys with nips bigger than mine, I’ve seen trans guys after di with confident nips bigger than mine (it’s all preference and what suits your body tbh). I’ve heard with the peri method they can shave down a little bit anyways right? I’m fine with my right areola 100% (it’s like 1.5 inches diameter) but my left is a bit bigger than the other (maybe by like a good half inch more ) so I’d just want a bit of symmetry? Idc if nips are different sizes or shapes, I just want the areoles to look somewhat similar in size and fine with size of right areola so only one resizing or shaving off needed. 3. I’m clean from self harm but from that I know all my scars no matter what will always form bad keloids that were super red and puffy and inflamed for 2-3 years and they’ve just turned pink and some white but all of them after 3-4 years are still keloids or hypertrophic scarring. Many of them inches bigger as keloids vs fresh. Being underweight again, that’s just gonna be even worse. My scars would never heal and I dream of being stealth and just saying I’m a dude. I admire those who can rock them but I can’t. 4. I may sound perfect for peri but skin elasticity might be an issue. I’m 5”0, 95 pounds, and my chest size I believe is 28AA. I don’t think I’d be able to get keyhole but maybe peri? I’ve always been so small chested that I couldn’t ever fit the store sizes smallest at 32A but I gained 50 pounds during covid and my skin elasticity plus chest size growed/stretched to fill that A cup. I am such a small person that starting at 28AA then went up to 32AA then lost all that weight in a year (50-60 pounds) that now I’m technically a 28AA again. I may be at my starting size(aka what it naturally is) but I grew sizes then shrunk and I know how that affects skin elasticity. 5. Plus I kinda think I might be a good candidate because my chest is smaller than my cis hubbies with gynocomastia and those cases require more sculpting and masculinizing contouring, not di. Plus for peri or the donut method, what’s their max skin allowed to removed? If my left chest is a bit uneven then will they even it out and guess the best they can? 6. I don’t mind revisions. Can’t grow back new nipple sensations and rare. And honestly at 28AA now, I don’t think I’d need a revision. Many cis guys have moobs, no one is completely flat. Im in Canada so my insurance and waitlist covers my surgery but what about for revisions? Aka I only care about size symmetry, keloids ,and flatness for appearances, plus preserving what little nipple sensation I have. I only know like 3 surgeries so I’m not knowledgeable at all, I wanna know my options and pros and cons overall.

2024-06-22 02:01:48


# A HOMELAND FOR GOG and MAGOGA HOMELAND FOR GOG and MAGOG > Benjamin Freedman, as mentioned earlier, was an Ashkenazic Jew who was highly placed in the American government in the early to middle part of the twentieth century and had rather free access to presidents and statesmen up to the Kennedy Administration. Mr. Freedman, once a wealthy Jewish businessman, became disillusioned with his Jewish heritage after learning of their origins and their political machinations worldwide. Breaking with organized Jewry he spent the majority of his great wealth in attempts to reveal to the world the true driving force behind the establishment of the nation of Israel by the United Nations as well as other historical misconceptions concerning the Khazarian roots of modern Judaism. In a compelling narrative of the world history of that era, Freedman relates the fomenting of the treachery he witnessed in the manipulation of the outcome of WWI. Germany, according to Freedman and other historians, was apparently winning, and had virtually won, the war, when they made, in the summer of 1916, a very surprising and magnanimous offer to Great Britain. England was in a very precarious position at that time; essentially out of ammunition with food supplies for about one week remaining, to be followed by national starvation; German submarines, taking the Allies completely by surprise, had cut off all shipping convoys. Then came the most unexpected of all -- Germany offered terms for peace. "At that time," says Freedman, "the French army had mutinied. They had lost 600,000 of the flower of French youth in the defense of Verdun on the Somme. The Russian army was defecting, they were picking up their toys and going home, they didn't want to play war anymore, they didn't like the Czar. And the Italian army had collapsed. "Not a shot had been fired on German soil" Freedman continues. "Not one enemy soldier had crossed the border into Germany" yet they offered peace. And not the ordinary peace of the conqueror to the conquered. The Germans proposed a *status quo ante* peace settlement, meaning that both sides would return to the same status as before the initiation of hostilities. With the enticement of such an offer, and with all other options effectively eliminated, Britain had little choice but to accept. However, there arose another offer, much more attractive to the British ego, which would bring about a victory heretofore impossible. While Germany was attempting to end the war in a more-than-equitable manner, German Zionists, representing Zionists from Eastern Europe, approached the British War Cabinet and offered them an alternative to merely pretending that a war had never happened. At this point, it would be well to define "Zionist". Those were (and are) Jews whose dominant purpose was the establishment of a "Jewish Homeland", a proposition that the majority of Jews at that time did not endorse. *Webster's Collegiate Dictionary* defines "Zionism" as "an international movement orig. for the establishment of a Jewish national or religious community in Palestine and later for the support of modern Israel." At the time that the United Nations decreed Israel to be a legitimate state, May 14, 1948, the most conservative of Jewish sects, the Hasidim, strongly opposed the establishment of a secular state of Israel, claiming that it was wrong to do so apart from Messiah's coming. The offer made the British at the time of Germany's near total victory, consisted of a proposal to bring the United States into the war on Britain's side and thus insure an Allied victory. This was contingent on the British, after the defeat of Germany, agreeing to secure a large section of Palestine as a Jewish homeland -- keeping in mind that this cabal was being created by those who had no connected ancestry, whatever, to the Semitic tribes of ancient Israel, and therefore no ancestral right to fabricate even a remote claim to the region. Freedman makes the observation that England had no more right to promise Palestine to the Jews than "the United States would have to promise Japan to Ireland" -- but that is precisely what they did. This promise resulted in the drafting of a small historical document called *The Balfour Declaration*. The following is the text, in its entirety, of this short and concise historical document: > Note the second sentence (which is also the second paragraph) which claims that "that nothing shall be done which may prejudice the civil and religious rights of existing non-Jewish communities in Palestine". Was it perhaps not considered at that time that the forcible dispossession of other persons from their land and property -- namely the Palestinian Arabs -- was a violation or prejudicial to their "civil and religious rights"? That does seem a bit of a stretch. An interesting point in Freedman's presentation is that the German Jews were very well treated in their land, many of them having fled persecution from Russia and other Eastern European countries. As Freedman puts it, "the Jews had never been better off in any country in the world than they had been in Germany." Nearly all of the great industrial giants of that time, the Rathenaus, the Balins, Bleichroder, the Warburgs, and of course, the Rothchilds (to whom the Balfour letter is addressed), were Jews and resided in Germany. What the Zionists did was nothing less than a classical "sell out" of their German homeland. The methods used to bring the United States into the war against Germany also appear to be classical in that it was a pattern for many other such inducements for the US to enter wars it had no business fighting. As with the Serbian conflict and many others of this age, where fabricated atrocities against ethnic minorities, women and children were used to gain the agreement of the American Congress and citizens, so also was that device used to bring the US into WWI. Freedman notes that the American media, which prior to that had been somewhat pro-German, began reporting that the Germans were engaged in the commission of atrocities which, it was later proven, were utterly false: atrocities such as the shooting of Red Cross nurses and cutting off babies hands, etc. During Freedman's involvement with matters of state he attended the Paris Conference in 1919, where Germany was presented with demands for reparations. In that conference, according to Mr. Freedman, there were 117 Jews present, being represented by Bernard Baruch, presenting their demands for the partitioning of Palestine as a Jewish homeland. As to what made it possible for the actual establishment of the State of Israel as opposed to a mere political declaration by the United Nations, Mr. Freedman expounds. "It is a well-established and an undeniable historic fact," he writes, "that the active participation of the United States in the conquest of Palestine, on **behalf** of the Zionists, was the factor responsible for the conquest of Palestine **by** the Zionists. Without the active participation of the United States," Freedman reemphasizes, "it is certain that the Zionists would never have attempted the conquest of Palestine by force of arms." The rest, as it is said, is history. When one considers all of that history which has been involved in shaping the world and especially the Middle East as it is today, it becomes less of a mystery as to why the Palestinian Muslims are possessed of such an animosity and hatred of those who, according to all that has been presented here, literally stole their lives and lands. It also seems to remove the mystery from the question the American president asked as to why they hate America as much as they do -- America, who has been the chief military supplier and financier of Gog and Magog in the Khazarian usurpation of Palestine. As Mr. Bush has said, "If you support terrorists, you are a terrorist;" so also can it be said by the Muslims, "If you support our enemies who steal our land and our dignity and our history, you are also our enemies." https://preview.redd.it/i8ugja7v518d1.jpg?width=627&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=a1e1f24a55e968713911923cb011316cdec703de That message should have rung loud and clear on September 11, 2001 when even two of America's top Christian evangelists (Pat Robertson and Jerry Falwell) claimed that the act was Divine retribution for the sins of America. They, of course, abandoned that unpopular position when public sentiment turned against them. One would have to ask if, in that instance, those two men had effectively defined the terms *conviction* and *commitment* for the followers of their brand of "Christianity".

2024-06-22 02:00:39

No more records found